High Court rejects challenges to ‘super juniors’
The High Court has rejected challenges to the attendance of four ‘super-junior’ ministers at Cabinet meetings.
The separate challenges had been brought earlier this year by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy.
The rulings in both cases – heard by High Court President Mr Justice David Barniville, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan, and Mr Justice Conleth Bradley – were delivered today (19 December) .
Decisions ‘not invalidated’
that there was no constitutional provision, express or implied, that limited the attendance at meetings of the Government to the 15 ministers who were appointed by the President (including the Taoiseach).
“We do not consider that the attendance and participation of the relevant Ministers of State at meetings of the Government renders constitutionally infirm or invalidates any decision taken at the meeting consensually by the 15 members of the Government,” their judgment stated.
The judges referred to evidence in the case that confirmed that decisions taken by the members of Government were generally taken on a consensus basis but, at all times, if required, a roll-call vote of the 15 members of the Government could be called.
They added that Deputy Murphy had accepted that such a vote would involve only the 15 members of the Government.
“The attendance and participation by the super-junior ministers at meetings of the Government, therefore, does not undermine the decisions taken by the members of the Government, constitutionally appointed,” said.
Confidentiality
The judges also noted that neither of the deputies involved took issue with the attendance of the Chief Whip, the Cabinet Secretary or the Attorney General at Cabinet meetings.
The judgment also referred to the constitutional obligation to respect cabinet confidentiality, pointing that it applied to everyone attending such meetings, and not just the 15 members of the Government.
“Accordingly, we do not consider that the defendants have breached any express, or implied, constitutional constraint, limitation or prohibition by inviting the relevant Ministers of State to attend and participate in meetings of the Government,” the judges stated.